needs assessment to support groundwater...

Needs Assessment to Support Groundwater

Management in International Basin

Organisations of Africa

January 2013

1

This publication was produced by the sector project “Policy Advice Groundwater” of the Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The report is produced in cooperation with the SPLASH Project (of the EU Water Initiative ERA-Net) as well as with consultants from International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Cap-Net, WaterNet, Africa Groundwater Network (AGW-Net), Nile IWRM-Net, and Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS).

Table of Contents

Annexes ...................................................................................................................... 1 List of acronyms and abbreviations .............................................................................. i Executive summary .................................................................................................... iii Background ................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2 2. Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2 3. Beneficiaries and partners ................................................................................... 3 4. Methodology ........................................................................................................ 3 5. Results ................................................................................................................ 4

5.1 Basin profiles .................................................................................................... 4 5.1.1 Geographical and hydrogeological context ................................................. 4 5.1.2 Transboundary groundwater uses, users, and conflicts ............................. 8 5.1.3 Water governance framework and institutions ............................................ 8

5.2 Interviews ........................................................................................................ 10 5.3 SWOT analysis ............................................................................................... 11

6. Overall analysis ................................................................................................. 11 6.1 Groundwater governance in river, lake, aquifer basin organisations ........... 11 6.2 Groundwater data management and sharing .............................................. 15 6.3 Capacity building ......................................................................................... 16

7. Conclusions and perspectives ........................................................................... 16 8. Recommendations............................................................................................. 18 9. References ........................................................................................................ 21 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. 24

Annexes Annex 1 Map of major river basins in Africa Annex 2 WHYMAP Map of transboundary aquifers in Africa Annex 3 WHYMAP names and numbers of TBAs in Africa Annex 4 Maps of individual river, lake and aquifer basins included in the survey,

and their associated TBAs Annex 5 Questionnaire format Annex 6 Personnel interviewed Annex 7 Summarized SWOT analysis Annex 8 Basin Profile Reports

i

List of acronyms and abbreviations ABO Aquifer basin organisation AfDB African Development Bank AGWC African Groundwater Commission AGW-Net African Groundwater Network AMCOW African Ministers Council on Water ANBO African Network of Basin Organisations BGR Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe

(Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources) CAR Central African Republic CoE Centres of Excellence DSS Decision Support System DPSIR Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response DWA Department of Water Affairs DWAF Department of Water Affairs and Forestry ECOWAS Economic Community Of West African States EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ENTRO Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office ENSAPT Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Program Team GEF Global Environmental Facility GEUS Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland GMISA Groundwater Management Institute of Southern Africa GSB Geological Survey of Botswana GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Agency for Technical Co-operation) GW Groundwater GWP Global Water Partnership IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IAH International Association of Hydrogeologists IGAD Inter-Governmental Authority on Development ISARM Internationally Shared Aquifer Resource Management IW:LEARN International Waters Learning Exchange and Resource

Network IWMI International Water Management Institute LCBC Lake Chad Basin Commission HQ Head quarter IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency IAH International Association of Hydrogeologists IBO International Basin Organisation IGRAC International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre INBO International Network of Basin Organisations IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JASD-NSAS Joint Authority for the Study & Development of the Nubian

Sandstone Aquifer System LIMCOM Limpopo Watercourse Commission MAR Managed Aquifer Recharge MDGs Millennium Development Goals NBA Niger Basin Authority

ii

NBI Nile Basin Initiative NELTAC Nile Equatorial Lakes Technical Advisory Committee NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NSAS Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System OKACOM Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission OMVS Organisation pour la Mise en Valeur du Fleuve Sénégal (Organisation for the Development of Senegal River) ORASECOM Orange - Senqu River Commission RBF River Bank Filtration IBO RCSARM Regional Centre for Shared Aquifer Resources

Management RSAP-IWRM Regional Strategic Action Plan ofr IWRM SADC Southern Africa Development Community SNAPE Service National d’Aménagement des Points d’Eau

(National Service of Water Points Management), Guinea

SPLASH European Union Water Initiative Research Area Network (EUWI ERA-net)

SW Surface water SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats TAC Technical Advisory Committee TBA Transboundary aquifer UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNESCO-IHP United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation - International Hydrological Program UNGA United Nations General Assembly UNILC United Nations International Law Commission VBA Volta Basin Authority WHYMAP World-wide Hydrogeological Mapping and Assessment

Programme WRC Water Research Commission WRPMP Water Resources Planning and Management Project

iii

Executive summary This report presents results from a survey of nine selected international river and lake basin organisations (IBOs) in Africa on the present status, progress, and limitations of incorporating groundwater management into the mandate and practices of these organisations. The work links to ongoing efforts by the riparian states and the international community to strengthen the IBOs as main actors in integrated and transboundary water resources management in Africa. Given the present frame of incorporating transboundary groundwater management into the mandate of IBOs, as promoted by the Work plan of the African Ministers Council on Water (AMCOW), Southern Africa Development Community (SADC), and International Network of Basin Organisations (INBO), the present drivers and limiting forces are analysed in a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) framework, built on individual basin profile studies and surveys of the basin organisations and other relevant riparian state institutions. The study shows that despite incipient awareness, adoption of international legal frameworks and international promotion, actual transboundary GW management in the IBOs has not been fully addressed. Encouraging factors, like international advocacy, financial and technical support need to be backed by emphasis on political commitment and capacity development at all levels. The fact that IBOs are still struggling with their present mandates primarily related to surface water management, the added challenges of groundwater management need to be incorporated gradually, enhancing the integrated approach and overall added benefits to water resources management (IWRM). With groundwater attaining an increasingly important role in human development, water security and environmental protection in Africa, should inevitably and gradually receive the required recognition and attention. It is essential to build on international advances in terms of transboundary aquifer assessment and management, e.g. by Internationally Shared Aquifer Resource Management Project (ISARM), International Association of Hydrogeologists (IAH), International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC), UNESCO, Global Water Partnership (GWP), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), and adapt approaches to the African context, and indeed individual basins. Further, promoting groundwater attention at the political level is required to leverage commitment and African ownership, policy incorporation of groundwater and secured resources for the IBOs. Capacity development should focus on building understanding of the integrated role and strategic importance of groundwater, of the present issues and conceptual functioning of groundwater in the basins, and the associated required monitoring and data collection needs. It is critical that groundwater management becomes an integral part of water management, and not an isolated exercise. Hence, acquiring

iv

hydrogeological expertise in the IBOs is as relevant as updating expertise of already associated personnel. Furthermore, it is critical to build networks and transparent collaboration on groundwater in the basins as well as across the basins in the region, to optimize resources and knowledge produced, and to build African ownership of the process. Likewise, it is important to strategically enhance capacity of riparian states with less capacity, larger stakes in groundwater and higher risks of potential transboundary impacts in order to facilitate equal participation in decision making and enhance mutual trust development across borders.

1

Background The prevailing transboundary character of water resources have been acknowledged and catered for since the previous century through inter-state agreements and organisations for the joint management of shared water resources (Kilot et al., 2001). In Africa, 18 international river basins (the major ones out of 59, see Annex 1) today count on formal inter-governmental agreements and associated organisations1. Historically, focus of these institutions has been on surface waters (SW) (rivers and lakes). However, with increasing pressure on water resources, groundwater (GW) is progressively utilized, causing further potential cross-boundary impacts2. Hence, GW needs to be considered in international cooperation over water resources following the logic and fundamental principles of IWRM (Braune and Xu, 2008). Steps in this direction have been taken with the UNESCO-IHP and IAH programme on Internationally Shared Aquifer Resource Management (ISARM), initiated in 2000, which fostered policy dialogue and awareness on transboundary aquifers (TBAs3) and as a significant output produced a global inventory and mapping of transboundary aquifer systems (IGRAC, 2012; BGR, UNESCO, 2006) (Annex 2). This initiative was also instrumental in the formulation of 19 draft articles on the UNILC Law of Transboundary Aquifers, adopted by resolution of the UN General Assembly in 2008 (UNESCO, 2009). This laid the legal basis for adopting GW into international water law. Africa has a minimum of 40 major TBA systems, in combination underlying parts of most of continental African states, and most of them not coincident with the transboundary river basins (Annexes 2, 3, 44). There is a general consensus that transboundary GW resources in Africa should be managed within existing transboundary water management organisations, in effect the river or lake basins to which the GW resources geographically belong, or alternatively, if such do not exist for a particular TBA, by a dedicated aquifer basin organisation (INBO and GWP, 2012; Scheumann and Herrfahrdt-Pähle, 2008). This has been further endorsed by the Groundwater Resolutions of AMCOW at its 6th Session in Brazzaville, Congo, May 2007, stating the aim to ‘promote the institutionalisation of groundwater management by river basin organisations’ (Braune and Xu, 2011). The present survey is part of an initial support to the process of integrating GW into transboundary water management in Africa. It is recognized that while the foundation for joint GW management across borders have been laid there is limited progress in

1 http://transboundarywater.geo.orst.edu/research/RBO/RBO_Africa.html 2 From intensive pumping as well as intensive and uncontrolled land uses 3 A transboundary aquifer or transboundary aquifer system means respectively, an aquifer or aquifer system, parts of which are situated in different states (UNESCO, 2009). 4 The WHYMAP (BGR, UNESCO, 2006) is used as the base map for the TBAs. All TBAs are shown as ellipses to make the representation consistent across all IBOs.

2

the implementation of these processes on the ground (Altchenko et al. 2011; Braune and Xu, 2011).

1. Introduction Increasing populations, industrialisation, urbanisation, and intensified agriculture are putting enormous pressure on existing water resources, aggravated by accelerating climate change. The accumulating stress on water resources has negative impacts on public health, economic production, and the natural environment. By 2025, more than 3 billion people could be living in water-stressed countries (UNDP, 2006). Adopting an integrated approach to water resources management (IWRM) is critical to a sustainable future. Looking at river basin management worldwide, much progress has been made. However, it is also evident that the subsurface water resources have often been neglected. Therefore the interactions and interdependence between surface water and groundwater should be included in an integrated river basin management approach. The ‘Convention of the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses5’ and the ‘Law of Transboundary Aquifers’ provide guidance to countries on how to share water resources through transboundary cooperation (BGR WHYMAP, 2012). River and lake basin organisations play an increasingly important role in transboundary water management on the African continent. One of the entry points of enhanced GW management is through support to the existing or emerging African transboundary lake, river and aquifer basin organisations (IBOs)6 that have institutionalised mandates on integrated water resources management in areas of internationally shared water resources. It is expected that enhancing capacities of these organisations will promote greater overall collaboration and coordination of GW management internationally as well as nationally, in addition to integrating GW management into overall water resources management.

2. Objectives The immediate objectives of the needs assessment were to:

1. Assess the present framework (legal, institutional), practices, experiences, and capacity for GW management in selected IBOs in Africa

2. Identify and assess shortcomings and strengths for integrated GW management as part of integrated national and transboundary water resources management

5 U.N. GEN. ASSEMBLY 51st Sess., 99th mtg., U.N. Doc. A/RES/51/229 (Aug. 7, 1997). 6 Including groundwater bodies as a potential delimiting basis for transboundary water management and denoting these as ‘aquifer basins‘, the term ‘basin‘ has been broadened to not only encompass river and lake basins but also groundwater units. On the same token, ‘riparian states‘, denoting states sharing a common river, ‘aquifer states‘ can be used to signify states sharing a common aquifer.

3

3. Recommend immediate and longer term strategic steps for supporting a capacity-enhancing process through which GW is gradually and permanently included and integrated into the mandate of existing IBOs, based on consultations with the IBOs

4. Initiate a process and a network of partners (institutions, experts, decision makers, donors, and NGOs) for building and sustaining capacity for transboundary GW management in IBOs in Africa.

3. Beneficiaries and partners The primary beneficiaries of the needs assessment included the IBOs and the national (ground)water authorities of the member states. In addition, the assessment targeted donors and capacity building organisations in an effort to take the recommendations forward in collaboration with the IBOs and other stakeholders.

4. Methodology Nine selected IBOs (on Senegal River (OMVS), Niger River (NBA), Volta River (VBA), Lake Chad (LCBC), Nubian Sandstone Aquifer (NSAS), Nile River (NBI), Okavango River (OKACOM), Orange-Senquu River (ORASECOM), and Limpopo River (LIMCOM) entered into the survey, comprising personal interviews with acting representatives of the basin organisations as well as water management organisations of the respective member states. The needs assessment consisted of three parts: 1. Desktop studies to develop individual basin profiles for the basins; 2. Interviews with key personnel involved in GW mgt. in the basins; and 3. SWOT analysis7 based on the outcomes of the first two parts. Three regions and nine basins of continental Africa were covered in the study: Southern Africa (ORASECOM, LIMCOM, OKACOM), North-eastern Africa (NBI, NSAS), and Western Africa (OMVS, NBA, VBA, LCBC) (Fig.1 and Table 1). Together, the river basins intersect with 25 recognized TBAs (Annex 4, note ellipses are indicative only of extent of the TBAs). The basins and their organisations were selected to represent diversity in terms of hydro-geopolitical conditions on the continent, various types of basins (lake, river (endorheic8, non-endorheic) and aquifers) as well as different management levels. Subsequently, a consultation process, involving a review of the report and a workshop with the IBOs will take place, through which recommendations of this study will be discussed and further refined. The overall aim of the study is to determine bottlenecks for further progress in transboundary GW management, identify 7 A SWOT analysis is a tool that identifies the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of an organisation. The method of SWOT analysis is to take the information from an organisational analysis and separate it into internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external issues (opportunities and threats). 8 An endorheic basin , or an internal or closed drainage basin, means that water (from precipitation falling within it) does not drain to the ocean, but rather is left to leave the basin through evaporation and seepage.

4

significant lessons learned, and to identify ways forward through concrete and agreed recommendations related to legal, institutional, financial and capacity constraints.

5. Results In the following, results from the survey are presented in a condensed and synthesized form, comparing the nine IBOs.

5.1 Basin profiles

5.1.1 Geographical and hydrogeological context Most rivers in the survey originate in mountainous, high-rainfall areas and end in semi-arid or arid areas (Nile, Orange-Senqu, Senegal). This implies great dependence on the rivers in downstream areas adjacent to the rivers (with relatively higher population densities and many urban centres), while the arid areas further away from the rivers (> ~10 km distance) are mostly dependent on GW or are not significantly developed. Agriculture, including fisheries, is the most dominant economic activity in the less wealthy states, while other activities become increasingly more important in other states, like industry, mining and tourism. Historic economic disparity between states is also reflected in the degree of present water infrastructure development, with more wealthy states generally having more dams and reservoirs and consequently higher water security. Many rivers and lakes have a direct interaction with GW (e.g. Niger River and Lake Chad), and the water balance is only understood when taking the GW component into consideration. Some rivers pass through significant open water bodies or wetlands where the interaction with GW could be very critical for the sustenance of flows and water storage in dry seasons, but this is often less well understood (Nile, Niger, Okavango). The level of interaction between surface and groundwater tends to decrease in volume and change radically from humid to arid climate settings and in deeper confined aquifer systems. In humid areas shallow aquifers are annually replenished and have shallow water tables, with multiple surface water discharges. However, in more arid regions significant groundwater replenishment to deeper water tables can have a return-time of decades or centuries (and in some cases GW resources can be essentially non-renewable) and GW discharge is limited to isolated oases and salt marshes. An important outcome of this is the areal extant of surface water drainage basins and the underlying groundwater systems often differ radically in such regions (extract from BGR, WHYMAP (2012), see Fig. 1). In these arid regions of the world the more rational basis for IWRM is then the groundwater basin. Successful integrated water resources management can only be achieved if both surface and GW systems data are available and are comparable. Nevertheless there remains a lack of adequate information on GW in many parts of the world.

5

Consequently there is a distinct need for investment to improve capacity for GW assessment and monitoring (extract from BGR WHYMAP (2012)).

Figure 1 Individual reports for the IBOs have been produced as part of the survey (Annex 8). These are available at: http://www.splash-era.net/downloads/D8-6_Transboundary_River_Basins.pdf

6

Table 1. Key data on the basins and their joint organisations

a Cons: consultative, A: advisory, Coo: coordinating, P: policy-making, I: implementing, R: regulatory, Conf: conflict arbitration b Acc. to WHYMAP (BGR, UNESCO, 2006). Uncertainties exist due to uncertainty of extent of TBAs (e.g. Okavango) c See Annex 8 d Zimbabwe is part of the inactive part of the basin, not member of OKACOM e Guinea is full member of OMVS, but was not signatory of treaty creating IBO f Algeria is not a full member of NBA but does have observer status g Nations in parenthesis are not signatories to the LCBC treaty h Population within the of NSAS area is uncertain due to uncertainty related to the area of the aquifer and the number of people dependent on it

A typical geological setup includes shallow alluvial aquifers along the course of, and hydraulically connected to, the river. This may overlie deeper older and more regional geological formations (whether aquifer-forming or not). The regional formations, often transboundary in character, may comprise several overlying or overlapping hydraulically connected or unconnected aquifers. In the downstream arid areas, alluvial GW is typically seasonally and alternately recharged and drained by the river (Nile, Orange-Senqu, Senegal). In coastal areas, relatively recent, but important and extensive aquifers are also found. For lake basins, which are endorheic (like Chad

Basin Riparian countries Area (km2)

Population (mill.)

IBO (formed when)

Mandatea No. of associated

TBAsb

Ref. to basin profile reportc

Orange-Senqu

Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa

896,000 19 ORASECOM (2000)

Cons, A, Coo, I

4 Abiye, 2012

Limpopo Botswana, Mozambique, Zimbabwe, South Africa

410.000 14 LIMCOM (2003)

Cons, A 3 Owen, 2012

Okavango Angola, Botswana, Namibia, (Zimbabwe)d

430,000 0.7 OKACOM (1994)

Cons, A, Coo, R

2-5 Mapani, 2012

Nile Burundi, Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda

3,100,000 160 NBI (1999)

Cons, A, Coo, I

7 Mirghani and Tindimugaya,

2012

Nubian Chad, Egypt, Libya, Sudan

2,200,000 67-140h NSAS (1999)

Cons, A - Mirghani, 2012

Senegal (Guinea)e, Mali, Mauritania, Senegal

300,000 5 OMVS (1972)

Cons, A, Coo, I, R, Conf, P

2 Diene, 2012

Niger (Algeria)f, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Nigeria

2,000,000 109 NBA (1980)

Cons, A, Coo, I, R

3 Menge and Jäger, 2012

Volta Benin, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Mali, Togo

400,000 19 VBA (2006)

Cons, A, Coo, I, R

1 Jäger, 2012

Chad (Algeria), Cameroon, Chad, Central African Republic, (Libya), Niger, Nigeria, (Sudan)g

2,300,000 30 LCBC (1964)

Cons, A, Coo, R

2 Vassolo, 2012

7

and Okavango), drainage patterns and aquifers are more governed by internal low topography, good underground hydraulic drainage and high evaporation rates.

TBAs may be of a quite diverse nature in terms of geographic location and extent, depth, vulnerability, productivity, water quality, flow, storage and replenishment properties, with implications for development interests, impacts and management issues. Accounting for GW and TBAs in transboundary water management is generally more complicated than just looking at surface water. This is because the traditional concept that hydrological boundaries are governed by topography (water divides in mountainous areas) and that all water within a common basin flows towards and discharges in one point, is challenged (Fig. 2).

Figure 2. Conceptual sketch of a possible configuration of an international river basin and associated TBAs The delineation of some river basins, especially in arid areas, includes areas that are ‘hydraulically inactive’ because of limited present precipitation (Niger, Nile, Orange-Senqu, Okavango, Nubian Sandstone Aquifer). However, these areas may still be important in terms of GW flow and storage and potential interaction with river flows. In such areas, aquifer systems and previous/historic climate may be more important than topography in defining active basin areas. As an example, the Orange-Senqu river basin includes a large part of southern Botswana due to underground GW reserves though no present day river flow occurs in the area (Anton Earle, personal communication).

8

Including GW in water management requires an expansion of the typical upstream-downstream approach to river basin management. With aquifers entering the equation, the water unit attains a third dimension where GW resources may be held in layers with various degree of connection with the river system and different retention times. Including GW may significantly change the conceptual model of the hydrological functioning of a river basin. Furthermore, traditional river management involves determining minimum flow requirements to sustain environmental benefits and services. This includes considerations of baseflow contributed partly by GW. However, when including considerations of GW, it becomes equally important to address minimum requirements for GW levels in the catchment, for the sustained access to GW in dry periods, e.g. by humans having shallow drinking water wells, by wetlands depending on GW outflow and by plants extracting water from shallow or deeper GW.

5.1.2 Transboundary groundwater uses, users, and conflicts Where GW is not significantly developed, populations concentrate along the rivers (Senegal, Orange-Senqu, Nile, Okavango). Conversely, development of GW, particularly in rural areas, provides means of subsistence and economic development. As of now, there are very few formal ‘schemes’ that draw water resources from larger and deeper transboundary aquifers, apart from the most prominent one’s such as in the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS) in Libya and related schemes in Egypt. Generally speaking, local impacts of GW development are recognized, while transboundary impacts are not. This is partly explained by relatively low level of development, lack of monitoring and data sharing across borders, and lack of awareness of potential problems. This entails relatively little present incentives for joint management. Potential or emerging conflicts were encountered in large TBAs (LCBC, NSAS), in riverine aquifers (LIMCOM) or in coastal aquifers (OMVS).

5.1.3 Water governance framework and institutions The nine IBOs9 have been established over the period from 1964 to 2006, with the oldest and newest being LCBC and VBA, respectively (Table 1). The institutions are based on joint inter-governmental agreements (also called treaties or conventions) related to the management of water resources in the basin. In addition, the intent of these agreements are effectuated and executed through staffed and funded basin organisations (IBOs).

Often, the development of cooperative agreements and associated organisations has followed a historic, ongoing process, with the tendency to become progressively

9 Recognizing that NBI and NSAS are not formalized IBOs at present, but rather interim institutional setups with prospects of becoming legally established basin entities. As such, no aquifer basin organisation (ABO) does yet configure on the African continent. Yet, we have maintained the A in the abbreviation for the lake, river, aquifer basin organisations (IBOs).

9

more comprehensive, with respect to inclusion of riparian/lacustrine states and the mandate of the organisation and realm of governance (e.g. from principles of ‘equitable water access’ to more explicit codes on e.g. water allocation, joint agreements on water development projects, environmental protection, water user participation and lately focus on benefit sharing).

Typically, SW resources management has taken precedence over GW management, in the agreements as well as in implementation. For the majority of the institutions (agreements as well as IBOs), the primary objective is to advise riparian governments and its constituents reg. management of joint water resources (Table 1). Typically, the IBOs are responsible for advising the member states on (NEPAD et al., 2011):

• Measures and arrangements to determine the long-term safe yield of the water available from all potential water resources in the basin

• Reasonable demands for water by consumers in the basin • Criteria to be adopted in the conservation, equitable allocation and sustainable

utilisation of water resources in the basin • Investigations, separately or jointly by the contracting parties, related to the

development of any water resource in the basin, including the construction, operation and maintenance of any water works

• Prevention of pollution of water resources and control over aquatic weeds in the basin

• Measures that can be implemented by one or all of the contracting parties to alleviate short-term difficulties resulting from water shortages in the basin during periods of drought, taking into consideration the availability of stored water and the water requirements within the territories of the respective parties at that time

• Joint monitoring, data and information exchange

A typical organisational setup of a IBO is depicted in Fig. 3. Although different organisational models exist, the commissions usually have a superior political decision making organ (called e.g. Conference of Heads or Council) defining policies and governance principles for the IBO, a technical organ (often termed technical task team) where technical management issues are discussed before presentation of technical recommendations to the political decision-making organ (this may also be an executive arm, which is in charge of implementing the decisions of the superior unit), as well as a Secretariat that provides administrative support and overall coordination of the IBO’s activities. In addition, one or more consultative units may be in place, tasked with advising the superior unit (or other units) reg. e.g. financing and investment or technicalities/modalities for water allocation. At present, in most IBOs, only the Secretariat position is staffed and full-time, whereas the members of the political and technical organs are delegates from member states’ ministries whose IBO duties form only a part of their job description. Finally, the IBOs

10

may include national units (e.g. OMVS, ORASECOM) or representatives in each member state, which play the role of interface between national water mgt. departments and the basin organisation. This national unit may, or may not, have GW expertise. In cases, national level responsibilities for GW are split between the national authority for water and the geological surveys (Botswana). Often, collaboration of national water mgt. authorities and IBOs are not at the operational level yet. The costs of the IBOs are typically shared among the member states, either equally or according to a defined formula depending on ability or interest in the arrangement. As an example for LCBC, Nigeria contributes 52%, Cameroon 26%, Chad 11%, Niger 7%, and Central African Republic 4%, towards the annual budget (AMCOW and ANBO, 2007). Significant funding is also coming from external sources, mostly donors.

Fig.3 Example of a setup of a IBO (example is from LIMCOM10)

5.2 Interviews The interviews supporting the needs assessment were carried out in the period Nov. 2011 to March 2012. They addressed three categories of water management staff in the basins: 1. Staff at the HQ (Secretariat) of the IBO; 2. Staff representing the IBO in the riparian states; and 3. Staff from the national water management authorities, responsible for GW management. Separate interview schedules were used for these categories (Annex 5). A listing of the personnel interviewed as part of the survey are given in Annex 6 and summarized in Table 2 below. Finally, the transcripts of the questionnaires can be found in the individual basin profile reports (Annex 8).

10 http://www.limcom.org/en/About/Structure.aspx

11

Table 2. Number of interviewees for the IBOs IBO No. of interviewees

ORASECOM 9

LIMCOM 8

OKACOM 5

NBI 22

NSAS 3

OMVS 8

NBA 3

VBA 3

LCBC 3

5.3 SWOT analysis The interviews formed the basis of individual SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis for the IBOs (see basin profile reports). Synthesizing these, the underlying general strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the IBOs, generating the observed reality on the ground, are found to be the following (Table 3 and Annex 7).

6. Overall analysis In the following, the SWOT analysis is further qualified.

6.1 Groundwater governance in river, lake, aquifer basin organisations

According to the findings of the survey, emphasis and efforts accorded to GW management, and success in addressing it, vary among IBOs and individual states. The importance given to GW is related to:

• the dependence (present or future expected) on GW of the society • general economic development and population density • environmental problems perceived to be linked to GW (e.g. salinisation of soils

in lower Senegal River due to raising GWLs or seawater intrusion) • the political power of the decision-making body of the IBO • the age of the IBO • the degree of legal formalisation of GW management • the support from external sources, e.g. multilateral donors • location and relative strength of individual basin states • number of basin states in the IBO

12

Table 3. SWOT analysis Strengths

1. Strong political support from riparian states for IWRM

2. AMCOW is supporting integration of GW management into IBOs

3. Regional development communities (e.g. SADC) are strongly promoting regional cooperation on GW management

4. ISARM has provided tools and networks for further enhancing action on TBA management

5. Multi-governmental agreements exist on the joint management of water resources and the benefits derived from their use

6. Most, though not all, IBOs have a permanent Secretariat and established organisational structure with agreed shared budget allocations for carrying out their mandate

7. GW generally recognized as supporting the hydrological system

8. Experience with collaboration with various international and bilateral and multilateral partners (e.g. ANBO, INBO, SADC, UNESCO, GWP, etc.) can foster further joint riparian collaboration and financial capacity

Weaknesses 1. No explicit mandate to address GW in legal

framework 2. GW development associated mostly with incremental

and often private informal, development, not large infrastructure projects, which normally fall in the realm of IBOs

3. Little understanding of the TBAs and their potential for human development, as well as their physical extent, connection with other aquifers and SW and their vulnerabilities to development

4. Most IBOs do not have a water resources strategy or action plan that explicitly considers GW

5. Limited cooperation between IBOs and national authorities on GW issues

6. Limited collaboration between IBOs on similar water management issues

7. Lack of tradition in applying data for management of joint GW-SW resources

8. Few resources put into data and knowledge management

9. Unclear data sharing agreements make riparian states reluctant to share data

10. Data monitoring on GW not coordinated across borders => limited concerted knowledge on transboundary impact

11. Understaffing of IBOs with respect to hydrogeology expertise

12. Most knowledge is generated through commissioned experts

13. Little stakeholder involvement at all levels

Opportunities 1. IBOS provide a suitable platform for integrating

management of GW into IWRM 2. With GW becoming of increasing interest to the

states for other uses than dispersed domestic use and with already emerging GW issues of overuse and degradation, there will be greater emphasis on GW management

3. GW and TBAs management receives increasing attention from multilateral donors

4. There is expressed interest in IBOs to get more understanding of SW-GW interaction

5. Joint research projects and results on the TBAs are emerging

6. Present organisational frameworks provide for permanent IBOs for NBI and NSAS

7. ANBO, AMCOW, GWP, UNECE can foster further awareness, focus and capacity on transboundary GW management

8. Regional development communities in various parts of Africa (e.g. ECOWAS) can emphasize GW in their regional IWRM framework

9. Better tools for assessing SW-GW interaction and interdependencies are being developed (e.g. through IAEA on isotopes and tracers)

10. TBA focus may enhance collaboration at local, national and international level on GW, improving overall management

11. Joint GW capacity in IBOs may level the disparate present national GW capacities

12. Using the international attention to TBAs to raise the national attention to GW

Threats 1. Too little national political commitment and support 2. Duplication or confusion of roles and responsibilities

of existing (national) organisations, e.g. on data management

3. General under-capacity of IBOs for addressing transboundary water management

4. Disparities among riparian states on the capacity and commitment towards joint (ground)water resources management

5. Financing is not continuous and secured 6. Conflicting interests between riparian states 7. Riparian states may reject the role of IBOs in

managing TBAs 8. Science/technology is not integrated into

management. Functions independently of policies and regulation

9. Not all riparian states comply with their financial duties

10. Funding requirements for GW management is seen as a competitor to same for SW

11. IBOs too surface water-centered 12. Little collaboration between the international SW

and GW community

13

Arid countries, like Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia in southern Africa have devoted understandably relatively more attention to GW resources exploration, assessment, development and monitoring. Likewise, in northern Africa, the unilateral reliance on GW and the enormous stores of non-renewable GW in Libya and parts of Egypt have given rise to the creation of the predominantly GW-centred entity for understanding, using, sharing and managing the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer (NSAS). With greater GW dependence and degree of non-renewability, the issues also tend to become more politicised and flawed with in-transparency, due to the larger stakes involved for the various parties (NSAS). In addition, there is disparity between the member states of the IBOs in terms of how far they are in considering GW in their national water management structures and this is reflected in their present involvement and contribution to TBA management. The level of national GW consideration can be ranked on a scale from incipient awareness of the importance of GW to a verified understanding and pro-active management of the resource (Box 1). While basin commission conventions generally refer to water resources in a comprehensive sense, the realm of management is traditionally the river basin and GW is typically not catered for explicitly. An exception is OMVS, where GW is mentioned explicitly in the treaty. Management and attention have progressed to a certain extent, due to maturing of the organisation, existence of technical and scientific capacity and acknowledgement of the significant role of GW in environmental issues, and the fact that the IBO has as their highest decision-making structure the Heads of State of the respective countries. Box 1. Various levels of national-scale GW consideration, as a chronological sequence of a staged process towards pro-active and adaptive management of GW

Some IBOs have advanced more on the institutional/programmatic level (ORASECOM, LIMCOM), while others have progressed mostly on the technical level (NSAS). This is partly a function of the roles of the IBOs, where NSAS is engaged to primarily and initially derive the knowledge base necessary for decision making on the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer. An important factor for the awareness of GW in ORASECOM and LIMCOM is related to the heavy engagement of SADC (the

1. Incipient awareness among decision makers 2. Identification of pertinent GW issues 3. Recognition in policy dabate 4. Accounting in policies and strategies 5. Gradual understanding, through delineation, diagnosis and integrated conceptual

hydrological modeling of the aquifers and associated systems 6. Implementation of regulations related to use, allocation and protection of GW as well

as regulation related to land use 7. Stakeholder involvement 8. Enforcement of regulation 9. Iterative review and revision of existing strategies and regulations as new knowledge

becomes available

14

regional development organ supporting cooperation and coordination in the Southern African region) in promoting IWRM and management of shared watercourses, building and strengthening the associated IBOs and focusing on GW. SADC has a revolving Regional Strategic Action Plan for IWRM (RSAP-IWRM) from 1998 (SADC 2005), which since 2006 started implementing a dedicated program on groundwater management, which has focus at a range of levels, from local to regional. Furthermore, in 2000, SADC adopted the international protocol on Shared Watercourses (includes GW), which mandates the IBOs to be in charge of international cooperation. SADC is presently considering how the UNGA Resolution 64/124 on draft articles on the law of TBAs can be implemented (UNESCO-IHP, 2009). ORASECOM has, as the only surveyed IBO, established a task force/technical committee on groundwater (in 2007) to facilitate the dialogue between the respective basin states on transboundary aquifer management. Present experience with project implementation on TBAs relate primarily to the characterisation and conceptual understanding of the hydrogeological functioning of the aquifers, and less on implementation of infrastructure of GW (UNESCO, 2010, 2004). A global trend for multilateral donors to encourage and support regional cooperation, recognizing the transboundary aspects of many development and natural resource management issues, is increasingly apparent for water resources management in Africa. Many of the IBOs are funded partially by donors, significantly promoting and enhancing the progress of operationalizing their mandates. However, this involvement may also add to the complexities of implementing sustainable GW mgt. through the IBOs:

• Various donors do not coordinate efforts on these issues, limiting the optimisation of resources

• Donors may take advantage of the limited capacity of the IBOs to approve strategic projects, which have not been properly assessed in terms of potential socio-economic and environmental impacts (LCBC)

Due to high international interest in preserving environmental and tourist values in the Okavango Delta, OKACOM has been subject to substantial funding and technical support.

LCBC is facing many problems despite a relatively long-established IBO. This is related to the basin’s generally low development level, widespread poverty, degraded land resources, and probably the fact that downstream nations (Niger, Chad) are relatively weaker than their upstream counterparts (Nigeria, CAR). There is a legacy of unilateral upstream water development (dams) with consequent downstream negative impacts. Also, the fact that primary water supply still is a priority entails a limited interest in entering into management of the GW resources, which may be considered a second order requirement.

15

Overall, there is a lack of human, technical and financial capacity in the IBOs at present to address GW management. This is partially a reflection of the lack of political priority, awareness and shared vision and due to an entrenched priority of surface water management. This results in limited action on the ground (such as monitoring, regulation, allocation, data sharing, stakeholder involvement, etc.). Limited exchange of knowledge and experience across the IBOs is taking place, despite the fact that many TBAs cut across more than one IBO (e.g. the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer reaches to the Lake Chad basin, the Iullemeden Aquifer cuts across both the Lake Chad basin and the Niger River basin). Finally, the two interim IBOs, NBI and NSAS, need to be formalised as fully-fledged IBOs, as present setup, while contributing to knowledge and progress, also creates uncertainty on future options. Stakeholder involvement regarding GW management is hardly developed at present, while some IBOs do have significant ongoing initiatives to build public awareness and participation in decision processes related to water development and management (NBI, ORASECOM, OMVS). All IBOs rely on external donor support to fund their activities (except e.g. OMVS who has some means from infrastructure funds (GTZ, 2008)). Financial dependence, however, endangers their long-term sustainability and effectiveness.

6.2 Groundwater data management and sharing GW monitoring efforts in the basins are presently at a low level. In addition, monitoring of GW occurs primarily at the national level, with little consideration of the potential transboundary nature of GW resources, let alone transboundary impacts. As a result, little collaboration occurs across borders on GW monitoring. Efforts in the IBOs on joint aquifer characterization projects (e.g. LCBC (Zairi et al., 2010) and ORASECOM (ORASECOM, 2009)), data harmonization and sharing are emerging, and some experiences gained, but in most cases procedures are not institutionalized sufficiently, leading to lack of clarity regarding roles and responsibilities. Most monitoring occurs on a project-by-project basis and often by consultants rather than the respective authorities, which while giving some insight, breaks the continuity and anchorage of information. Data are often not collated in central systems and mostly not digitized and geo-referenced, which makes it difficult to obtain relevant data. Finally, data may be available to various extents, but are often not applied into the management and decision making processes. In many countries of Africa, the management of aquifers is assigned to Geological Surveys and their hydrogeological departments and monitoring is conducted primarily for research purposes and do not feed the process of managing the resource. Jointly assessing GW resources across borders contribute to enhance understanding, optimize resources, built networks and ensure equitable and similar development of the resource, thereby preventing e.g. migration in times of drought, even if transboundary flow impacts are non-existing or limited (Braune and Xu, 2011).

16

In addition, GW quality monitoring needs a lot more emphasis due to potentially high environmental risks. Also, focus on monitoring of large-scale (commercial) users is required. Finally, GW management is to be reconciled with land and waste management. In data scarce environments with limited resources, it becomes important to optimize the means of getting relevant information on GW resources. The use of space technology, which has been acquired by NBA is a strong asset to water resource development in the Niger River Basin. Also, the use of tracers and isotopes yields great potential for characterisation of GW resources, recharge and interaction with SW and wetlands, e.g. in LCBC, NSAS and NBI (Zairi et al. 2010, Verhagen, 2003). Also, airborne geophysics, though not cheap, may prove very valuable for GW exploration in inaccessible areas of Africa (Meier et al., 2008).

6.3 Capacity building In addition to political attention, capacity is the major constraint for GW management to move forward in the African context. This relates to human, technical as well as financial resources, and more so in the IBOs than in the national counterparts. Even loss of existing human capacity to the private sector was reported as a problem for the national and IBOs (ORASECOM, LIMCOM). GW expertise is generally missing in the IBOs, though in certain areas significant research results on e.g. aquifer extent (NSAS), recharge mechanisms and water quality (ORASECOM) exist, but principally from academic institutions. As expertise to IBOs is expected to derive partially from the expertise pool of the national authorities, it becomes important to also re-enhance the national capacities.

7. Conclusions and perspectives Human GW dependence varies across the African continent, but everywhere is it significant and growing. However, the commitment to address GW resources in the IBOs of Africa, although ratified, and despite an incipient awareness at decision-making level about the importance of GW, is not fully translated into policies and operational management actions. Existing initiatives and efforts of cooperative management of TBAs in Africa are in an early stage of development, whether in the form of established IBOs or dedicated aquifer basin organisations (ABOs). Many of the IBOs are relatively new and still struggling with their present mandate, which is primarily related to SW management. The added challenge of incorporating GW into their function is at present overwhelming, especially considering their capacity. Also, many issues and constraints are not particularly related or specific to GW management, but more generally related to governance and the functioning of the IBOs (GTZ, 2008). Hence, it is imperative to address these concerns as well as build in those particular requirements for addressing GW management. Managing GW in an international context, in particular TBAs, are in principle similar and congruent to managing rivers and lakes. Furthermore, due to the integrated nature of the water resources, congruence and alignment in management are required. It is a matter of reconciling unilateral (national) interests with bi- and

17

multinational interests, through cooperation at the most appropriate level and adhering to general principles put down in international law, pertaining to all water resources and benefits derived from them, e.g. (UNESCO, 2009):

• Acknowledging sovereignty of individual states • Not causing significant harm to other parties • Reasonable and equitable sharing of benefits • Establish joint mechanisms of cooperation • Regular exchange of data and information • Prior notification of planned activities to other parties

However, with progressing emphasis on GW, principles and institutions developed on the basis of rivers (and lakes) and associated basins need revision and adjustments due to the distinctive properties of GW resources:

• Their geographical extent is not coinciding with river basins (Fig. 2) • They do not have a common terminus of outflow (Eckstein and Eckstein,

2003) • Their presence underground make them difficult to observe • They do not always have simple upstream-downstream relations • They are often accessed in a dispersed manner • They are closely linked with and dependent on land use • They slowly restore after degradation due to overdraft and pollution

So, while general principles above apply equally to GW and SW, and resources are linked and interdependent in nature, the differing characteristics entail complexities in addressing GW management in general, and integrated SW-GW resources in particular, when resources transverse political boundaries. There is a need to reformulate and adapt the legal basis to include explicit mentioning of GW, not as a new and separate domain, but rather an integrated part of existing systems, but with particular management requirements. There is accentuated need for participatory processes and preventive, precautionary and adaptive management, addressing the above-mentioned peculiarities of GW. As stated: ‘The above considerations on the applicability of the [UNECE] Water Convention to surface and groundwaters11 alike do not exclude the appropriateness of, or even the need for, further normative guidance addressing the highly specific issues concerning the implementation of the Convention with respect to groundwaters’ (INBO and GWP, 2012). Still, there is no doubt that the assessment, development, protection and management of TBAs as unitary water bodies, should be part of an IWRM approach. And defining optimal boundaries and geographical and institutional units for transboundary and IWRM management should take the GW resources into account. Knowledge and awareness of GW come with the need, but parallel facilitation and support are required. Ideally, GW mgt. should be pro-active, anticipating the various challenges ahead of time and preventing problems and conflicts. Generally, there is a balance between the driving forces that prompt responsive measures and the anticipative planning. Typically, political and financial priorities allow for limited pro- 11 The 1992 UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, which has been ratified by 36 UNECE countries and the European Community. http://www.unece.org/env/water/text/text.html

18

active management, and arguments for investment rely on evidence of actual need in terms of specific problems or conflicts. This justifies and argues for offensive and defensive monitoring strategies (GW-MATE, 2006). Data collection should be highly prioritized and problem-oriented, in order to optimize resources. Finally, processes should move in parallel, on awareness raising, advocacy, training, institutional strengthening, support to existing legal and regulatory frameworks, and implementation of actual projects. Regional development cooperation frameworks with adopted regional water policies (SADC, ECOWAS, e.g.) present a strong opportunity for supporting and strengthening cooperation on TBAs and GW in general in Africa. Finally, the emphasis on TBA management driven by international donors is expected to raise the profile of neglected local GW resources management, especially in low development countries (Braune and Xu, 2011). Conversely, focus at the international level should not preclude intensification of GW mgt. at national and local level. Finally, there needs to be a clear political decision on the degree of responsibility of IBOs to manage GW: Should they be limited to address TBAs, or should they also address GW in general. Should their role be only advisory or also implementing? The first question relates to the distribution of roles between the national and the international institutions, as indicated schematically below. Share between roles: Groundwater TBAs National authorities xxx x IBOs x xxx

8. Recommendations No blueprint for GW management with transboundary implications in the African context exists. Hence, while management of GW in TBAs, and GW with potential cross-border impacts has been proposed integrated in the realm of existing international IBOs (e.g. by AMCOW and INBO) and this is an emerging global contemporary trend, the legal and institutional frameworks are still under development and improvement, and many deficiencies are apparent, especially in terms of financial, human and technical capacity as seen from the survey. Based on the needs assessment, the following generic recommendations for progressing GW management in the international IBOs can be put forward. With regard to the legal basis:

1. The IBOs should, if not already done, adopt the UN draft articles on the UNILC Law of Transboundary Aquifers as a basic document for transboundary groundwater management

2. The particular properties of GW resources need to be specifically addressed in the legal frameworks, e.g. the relative delay in response, the relative vulnerability of the aquifers, and the ubiquity and diffuse use of the resource

19

3. Like for international cooperation on SW resources, the integrated approach to GW should be broader, and include benefit sharing aspects, e.g. related to land use planning, managed aquifer recharge, drought protection

With regard to the institutional framework and decision making: 1. GW committees of the IBOs should be formed (with at least one

GW/hydrogeological expert in each), to give increased emphasis and weight to GW issues in the organisations

2. IBOs should function as (donor) coordinating units with respect to GW-relevant projects and activities with transboundary implications

3. EIAs of all development and infrastructure projects of the IBOs should include a component on (transboundary) GW benefits and impacts (e.g. for water storage dams)

4. Centralised databases of TBAs should be maintained at the IBOs and clear data sharing protocols that include GW be developed

5. All IBOs should develop strategic GW action and investment plans for their basin

6. Establish regional level GW policies for TBAs across governments 7. Create a permanent agenda item on transboundary aquifers for all IBO board

meetings With regard to financial viability:

1. Regional development communities (SADC, ECOWAS, IGAD) should be further engaged in transboundary GW management, enhancing GW focus and facilitating multilateral donor support and support from international water organisations (e.g. UNESCO-IHP, UNECE, IAH, IAEA)

2. Attention of parliamentarians should be enhanced in order to promote political interest and commitment for GW management, which should facilitate financial support to the IBOs

3. The model of the Water Research Commission (WRC) of South Africa, where water fees and levees from major groundwater users are partly channelled to fund water research, could be applied. In this sense, the user-pay-principle is adhered to

With regard to capacity building and awareness raising:

1. Generally, there is need for soft investments (capacity building) rather than big GW infrastructure programs

2. Experiences and tools developed by international organisation, e.g. UNECE (e.g. their guidelines for TBA monitoring and assessment (UNECE, 2000)), the European Water Framework Directive (the GW component from 2006), and guidelines from INBO (INBO and GWP, 2012) should be applied and adapted to the African contexts

3. Existing coordinating and facilitating organisations (like AMCOW, INBO) should be further prompted to advocate for increased GW focus in IWRM and transboundary water management in Africa

20

4. Newly developed regional GW knowledge centers, like the GEF-funded Groundwater Management Institute of Southern Africa (GMISA) at Bloemfontein, South Africa and the UNESCO-funded Regional Centre for Shared Aquifer Resources Management (RCSARM) at Tripoli, Libya should also enable further enhancement of GW management transnationally

5. Collaboration and networking between IBOs is to be encouraged and facilitated, especially if sharing TBAs, but also beyond Africa (e.g. Europe, Middle East and South America). Local networks should be encouraged to enhance African ownership of the processes

8. A staged approach is recommended, in which agreed most pressing transboundary GW issues are addressed first, significant TBAs are identified and delineated, monitoring of selected and critical areas prioritized, a conceptual understanding of the integrated SW-GW systems are generated, and large-scale (commercial) GW users and polluters are targeted first in monitoring and licencing

9. Apply multi and inter-disciplinary assessment approaches to GW assessment and management (e.g. UNESCO-IHP, 2011), not just technical and hydro-geological. This also applies to cross-sectoral analysis, recognizing the many roles GW plays (for water supply, food production, climate change adaptation, environmental integrity, etc.)

10. Incorporate socio-economic and cost-benefit analysis of GW development to prioritize use and valuation of GW resources (Bann and Wood, 2012)

11. As well as increasing staff with hydrogeological background in the IBOs it is essential to upgrade existing personnel with respect to GW knowledge and skills

12. Enhance liaison with GW expertise existing in national units and academia 13. Prioritize the building of capacity of the weaker states with respect to GW

skills, in order to promote equal and competent participation in decision making

14. Greater use of remotely sensed data, airborne geophysics, and tracer and isotope technologies should be promoted and implemented

15. Use existing CB organisations and programmes in Africa to strengthen the capacity among the IBOs (like GWP, WaterNet, AGW-Net, Cap-Net, WRC, CoE on Water, NEPAD Water CoE, and IW:LEARN)

16. Rather than starting from scratch, use, replicate, and expand existing frameworks for enhancing public participation and awareness raising to address GW issues in the basins (as e.g. in NBI and ORASECOM)

17. Package information, awareness material and arguments on groundwater issues to assist the basin cooperation and policy dialogue, through increasing visibility of benefits (to politicians and public) of managing groundwater in river basin organisations (Box 2)

As follow up to this report, a consultative joint workshop with the implicated IBOs will be arranged. This will be used to further amend and consolidate the

21

recommendations put forward. In addition, a training manual on integrating GW management into the IBOs will be developed. Box 2. Twenty arguments for addressing GW in IWRM and transboundary water management

9. References Altchenko, Y, S.B. Awulachew, A.B. Brida, H.A. Diallo, D. Mogbante, P. Pavelic, C. Tindimugaya, and K.G. Villholth, 2011. Management of groundwater in Africa including transboundary aquifers: implications for meeting MDGs, livelihood goals and climate change adaptation. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. African Climate Policy Centre. Working Paper 6. 24 pp. AMCOW and ANBO, 2007. Source Book on Africa’s River and Lake Basin Organisations. Volume 1. 86 pp. ISBN 978-964-01-8894-3. Bann, C. and S.C. Wood, 2012. Valuing groundwater: A practical approach for integrating groundwater economic values into decision making – A case study in Namibia, Southern Africa. Water SA. Vol. 38, No. 3, 461-466. BGR, UNESCO, WHYMAP, River and groundwater basins of the world, 2012,

1. Conflicts over a shared GW resource can be avoided 2. Costs and results of monitoring can be shared 3. Benefits of GW development can be equitably shared 4. General collaboration and goodwill can be enhanced 5. Impacts of GW development and use in one member state may affect another 6. GW impacts across borders may not be obvious without joint monitoring 7. Developing GW in connection with transboundary SW (conjunctive use) may provide a lot of

benefits, e.g. flood waters may be used to replenish GW in overdrawn aquifers, and to flush and dilute GW pollution

8. Options for conjunctive use of GW and SW may alleviate water problems, in terms of both quantity and quality (e.g. through RBF for better drinking water quality, and MAR for water banking and salinity control)

9. GW may both function to alleviate droughts and floods, if properly managed 10. Many terrestrial ecosystems are GW-dependent and cannot be properly managed without

knowledge on the GW resources 11. GW is paramaount in preserving significant ecosystems and biodiversity 12. GW should not be considered as a single and unlimited resource 13. An integrated approach creates better understanding of water flows and water balances within the

basin 14. An integrated approach makes it possible to better delineate the basin, including active and

connected aquifers 15. SW issues involve or even have root in GW related activities and impacts 16. Water from the river may be lost through GW abstraction in the vicinity of the river 17. Lake, river, wetland, estuary water quality may be threatened by GW pollution in adjacent areas

(mining, intensive agriculture) 18. Further GW development may threaten traditional GW-based drinking water supply 19. GW development and proper management has a lot to do with achieving MDGs, poverty

alleviation, food security, climate change adaptation, and drought mitigsation 20. No action and transboundary cooperation may result in dis-benefits, e.g. hap hazardous and

chaotic exploitation of aquifers

22

BGR, UNESCO, 2006. WHYMAP and the World Map of Transboundary Aquifer Systems at the scale of 1 : 50 000 00 (Special Edition for the 4th World Water Forum, Mexico City, Mexico, March 2006). Braune, E., and Y. Xu, 2011. Transboundary Aquifer Utilization and Management in Southern Africa. ISARM-SADC since 2005. A Position Paper for the UNESCO Cluster Office, Harare. 53 pp. Braune, E. and , Y. Xu, 2008. Groundwater management issues in Southern Africa - An IWRM perspective. Water SA, 34(6) 699 - 706. ISSN 0378-4738. Eckstein, Y. and Eckstein, G.E., 2003. Ground water resources and international law in the Middle East peace process. Water International, 28 (20), 154-161. DOI:10.1080/02508060308691680. GTZ, 2008. Strenghtening Cooperation among River Basin Organizations. A Comparative Study of the Linkages between River/lake basin Organisations and the Respective Cooperating National Governments in Seven Major African Basins..Authors: K. Pietersen and H.E. Beekman. Draft Final Report. 96 pp. GW-MATE, 2006. Groundwater monitoring requirements for managing aquifer response and quality threats. Briefing Note Series, Note 9. Authorrs: A. Tuinhof, S. Foster, K. Kemper, H. Garduño, M. Nanni. IGRAC, 2012. Transboundary Aquifers of the World. Map 1 : 50 000 000. Update 2012 (Special Edition for the 6th World Water Forum, Marseille, France, Turkey, March 2012). INBO and GWP, 2012. The Handbook for Integrated Water Resources Management in Transboundary Basins of Rivers, Lakes and Aquifers. March, 2012. 120 pp. ISBN : 978-91-85321-85-8. Kilot, N., D. Shmueli, U. Shamir, 2001. Institutions for management of transboundary water sources: their nature, characteristics and shortcomings. Water Policy, 3, 229-255. Meier, J., T. Himmelsbach, and J. Böttcher, 2008. Palaeo-Hydrogeology of the Okavango Basin and Makgadikgadi Pan (Botswana) in the Light of Climate Change and Regional Tectonics. Int. Conference Groundwater and Climate Change, 25-28 Jun. 2008 Kampala, Uganda. NEPAD, African Union, AfDB, 2011. Study on Programme for Infrastructure Development in Africa (PIDA). Phase I Report. Draft. 32 pp.

23

ORASECOM, 2009. Groundwater Review of the Molopo-Nossob Basin for Rural Communities including Assessment of National Databases at the Subbasin Level for Possible Future Integration. Final Report. July 2009. 190 pp. Scheumann, W. and E. Herrfahrdt-Pähle (eds.), 2008. Conceptualizing cooperation on Africa’s transboundary groundwater resources. DIE, Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik. German Development Institute. Bonn. 394 pp. ISSN 1860-0468. SADC, 2005. Regional Strategic Action Plan on Integrated Water Resources Development and Management. Annotated Strategic Plan. 2005 to 2010. 75 pp. UNDP, 2006. Human Development Report 2006. Chapter 4. Water scarcity, risk and vulnerability. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2006. UNECE, 2000. Guidelines on Monitoring and Assessment of Transboundary Groundwaters. Lelystad, UNECE Task Force on Monitoring and Assessment, under the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Helsinki 1992). ISBN 9036953154. UNESCO, 2010. Transboundary Aquifers. Challenges and New Directions. Abstracts, ISARM, 2010 International Conference. Dec. 6 - 8, 2010. Paris, France. 188 pp. UNESCO, 2009. Transboundary Aquifers: Managing a Vital Resource. UNILC Draft Articles on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers (Ed. R.M. Stephan). 24 pp. UNESCO, 2004. Managing Shared Aquifer Resources in Africa. Proceedings from International Workshop, Tripoli, Libya, Jun. 2 - 4, 2002 (ed. B.G. Appelgren). 238 pp. UNESCO-IHP, 2011. Methodology for the GEF Transboundary Waters Assessment Programme. Volume 2. Methodology for the Assessment of Transboundary Aquifers, UNEP, vi + 113 pp. ISBN : 978-91-85321-85-8. UNESCO-IHP, 2009. Sharing an Invisible Water Resource for the Common Good: How to Make Use of the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Law of Transboundary Aquifers. Seminar convened by UNESCO-IHP, with SIWI, IAH and BGR. Report prepared by Raya Marina Stephan (UNESCO-IHP). 6 pp. Verhagen, B.Th., 2003. Isotope hydrology and its impact in the developing world. J. Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, 257(1), 17-26. Zairi, R. J.-L. Seidel, G. Favreau, A. Alouini, I. Baba Goni, C. Leduc, 2010. A comparative study of groundwater chemistry and dynamics within the shared aquifer

24

of the Lake Chad basin (Kadzell and Bornu Regions, Niger and Nigeria). Proceedings of Third International Conference ‚Managing Shared Aquifer Resources in Africa‘, UNESCO-IHP, Tripoli, Libya, May 25-27, 2008.

Acknowledgements This report is based on fruitful collaboration between a host of partners and organisations. With risk of omitting some, the following should be mentioned: BGR, AGW-Net, WaterNet, SPLASH Project, Cap-Net, Nile IWRM-Net, GEUS, IWMI. All the representatives of the IBOs as well as other people who entered into the surveys are sincerely thanked for their contributions.

Annex 1. Map of major river basins in Africa

1

Annex 2. Map of transboundary aquifers in Africa (For names of TBAs, see ANNEX 3)

1

From Struckmeier et al., 2006

Annex 3. WHYMAP names and numbers of TBAs in Africa

1

From Struckmeier et al., 2006

Annex 4. Maps of river, lake and aquifer basins included in the survey, and their associated TBAs (For names and numbers of TBAs, see ANNEX 3)

1

Figure A4.1 Map of Orange-Senqu River basin and associated TBAs


2

Figure A4.2 Map of Limpopo River basin and associated TBAs


1

Figure A4.3. Map of Okavango River basin and associated TBAs


1

Figure A4.4. Map of Nile River basin and associated TBAs


1

Figure A4.5 Map of Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System


1

Figure A4.6 Map of Senegal River basin and associated TBAs


1

Figure A4.7 Map of Niger River basin and associated TBAs


1

Figure A4.8 Map of Volta River basin and associated TBAs


2

Figure A4.9 Map of Lake Chad basin and associated TBA

Annex 5a. Questionnaire format, for IBO HQ team

1

Questionnaire for which IBO: ___________________________ Name: _________________________________________________ Institution (if different from IBO): ______________________________________________ Function - please let us know your job title, role and main responsibilities: Title: _________________________________________________________________________ Role and responsibilities: __________________________________________________________________________ How many years in present position: ______________________________________________ Background education: __________________________________________________________ Country: _____________________________ E-mail address: _______________________________ Gender: Female:________Male:________ Telephone number for possible follow up phone call: +___________________________ Date of Interview: ____________________________ Interview performed by: ____________________________ Place of interview: __________________________________________________ Or if done by telephone: _____

Questions: 1. Governance:

a. What is the principal and legal role/mandate of your IBO wrt. groundwater:

i. To allocate GW: Yes □ No □ ii. To oversee GW mgt.: Yes □ No □ iii. To monitor TBAs in basin: Yes □ No □ iv. To advise riparian states on issues related to GW: Yes □ No □ v. To implement joint GW development projects: Yes □ No □


2

vi. Other. Specify: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. Does your IBO have a staffed permanent Secretariat? Yes □ No □ c. Does the constitution/agreement establishing your IBO specifically/explicitly

address GW and groundwater issues? Yes □ No □

d. If yes, how?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

e. Which water management instruments/schemes do you use? (e.g.

management plans, action programs, monitoring and information systems, etc.)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

f. To what extent is groundwater already considered in your water management

structure and what actions/initiatives/programmes are you using to foster groundwater management within your organisation? (e.g. groundwater working group at ORASECOM) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

g. Do you collaborate with organisations/programmes/institutes/projects that

have a groundwater component? (African networks, policy decision makers (e.g. AU, AMCOW, AGWC, etc.) and international donors) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

h. Are you aware of the AMCOW work plan? Yes □ No □ i. If yes: Are there any activities you have taken on board due to the AMCOW

work plan?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

j. Do you know about the existence of the UN resolution on transboundary aquifers? Yes □ No □ Comments:

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Society/collaboration/inclusion:

a. What are the major uses of groundwater within the basin?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. What are the main water challenges your basin/lake is confronted with? (e.g. groundwater pollution, (ground-) water shortage, institutional, etc.)

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

c. Are there great disparities between the water conditions and challenges

in the riparian states?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

d. Also in the level of groundwater development and management? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

e. How is the exchange of knowledge/data and cooperation between the IBO

and the riparian states’ water mgt. structures?


4

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

f. Do you find the commitment of the riparian states to include GW on the

political agenda sufficient? Yes □ No □ g. Does this influence your functionality?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

h. What are you doing to strengthen the participation of the riparian states? (e.g.

are formal structures, like stakeholder forums, in place with clear roles and responsibilities in water resources management and in the decision making process, are regular meetings taking place, etc.)? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i. Do you exchange knowledge, experience with other IBOs? Yes □ No □ j. If yes, which?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3. Science/data/capacity building:

a. Is there a good understanding to which extent groundwater-surface water interaction determines water balance and water quality in your basin and across riparian territories? Yes □ No □

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

b. Where are you in the process of managing TBAs (also fill in Table 3 for

individual TBAs)?


5

i. Identification □ ii. Delineation □ iii. Diagnosis □ iv. Conceptual/numerical model □ v. Allocation principles □ vi. Implementation of joint infrastructure projects □

c. Which data, if any, do you collect related to groundwater in the basin?

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

d. What data bases, information portals, and monitoring networks exist in your organisation, where groundwater is (or could simply be) added? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

e. What is the process/mechanism for data sharing with the riparian states’ national groundwater dept.? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

f. How many hydrogeolgogists, or staff with hydrogeological background, are working in your organisation? Are all allocated posts filled? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

g. Do you find your present capacity (in terms of human and financial resources) sufficient to address groundwater management appropriately? Yes □ No □

h. How is prioritisation made in your organisation to meet the limited resources

(e.g. human, financial, technical resources)?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

i. What capacity building on groundwater is ongoing or planned?


6

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

j. What in particular is lacking regarding capacity on GW management

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________

Annex 5b. Questionnaire format, for IBO representative in riparian states

1


Questions to IBO Country Representatives in the Riparian States;

a. What is your position in the principal government water management structure(s) in the riparian state where you reside? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________


2

b. Are decisions taken within these structures first ratified by the IBO board at HQ before they are implemented? Yes □ No □

c. Do you find that groundwater management is strongly and adequately

addressed and integrated into overall water management of your country? Yes □ No □

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

d. What is the level and effectiveness of cooperation between the IBO and the

national groundwater management authorities?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

e. Is there an operational protocol between the L/ IBO and the countries on GW

data/information sharing? Yes □ No □

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

f. What are the procedures and costs involved in groundwater data sharing between the national groundwater management authority and the IBO?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

g. Do you acknowledge/value the work done by the IBO in terms of groundwater management? Yes □ No □

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3

h. Are there cooperative activities between the IBO and national groundwater

authorities, for instance monitoring activities? Yes □ No □

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

i. What are your key concerns with regards to transboundary groundwater

issues?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________ j. How important, in your professional opinion, is the interaction between surface

water and groundwater in terms of i) transboundary water balance and ii) transboundary water quality?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Annex 5c. Questionnaire format, for Chief Government Hydrogeologist or GW focal point in the riparian states

1


Questions to Chief Government Hydrogeologist or GW focal point in the Riparian States:

a. Do you share national groundwater data with the IBO? Does the IBO also share groundwater data from the other parts of the basin with your department?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Annex 5c. Questionnaire format, for Chief Government Hydrogeologist or GW focal point in the riparian states

2

______________________________________________________________

b. What are the procedures and mechanism of data sharing and funding?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

c. Are there joint programs and activities with the IBO in terms of groundwater

management and protection? Yes □ No □

Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

d. In terms of national groundwater allocation, at what level are you required to

obtain IBO approval?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________ e. Is the linkage to surface water flows, surface water quality and environment

considered when you allocate groundwater both internally (within the country) and in the transboundary situation? Internally: Yes □ No □

Transboundary: Yes □ No □ Comments: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

f. What is the formal relationship between your groundwater department and the

country representative of the IBO?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

Annex 6. Personnel interviewed

1

ORASECOM No.

Title Name Position Interview schedulea

Representation/ organisation

Country Email Telephone

1 Mr/Eng Lenka Thamae Executive Secretary, ORASECOM

A

ORASECOM HQ South Africa

[email protected]

+27126636826

2 Mr/Eng Rapule Pule Water Resources Specialist, ORASECOM

A ORASECOM HQ South Africa

[email protected]

+27126636826

3 Mr Leshoboro Nena

Hydrologist, DWA B Lesotho-DWA Lesotho [email protected] +26622317991

4 Ms Maria Amakali

Deputy Director and ORASECOM Technical Task Member

B Namibia-DWAF Namibia [email protected] +264612087167

5 Mr Greg Christelis Hydrogeologist, DWAF C Namibia-DWAF Namibia [email protected] +264612087089 6 Mr Othero Mulele Hydrogeologist, DWAF C Namibia-DWAF Namibia [email protected] +264612087123 7 Ms Matsolo Migwi Hydrogeologist, DWA C Lesotho-DWA Lesotho [email protected] +26622313602 8 Mr Thato Setloboko Hydrogeologist, DWA C Botswana-DWA Botswana [email protected] +26771490378 9 Dr Eddy van Wyk Hydrogeologist, DWA C South Africa-DWA South

Africa [email protected] +27828011740

a A. ORASECOM HQ B. National ORASECOM GW Focal Point C. National GW Mgt. Authority LIMCOM No. Title Name Position Interview

schedulea Representation/ organisation


1 Eng Sergio Sitoe Executive Secretary A

LIMCOM HQ Mozambique [email protected]

+258-823291980

2 Eng Ronald Inguane IWRM Officer, International Rivers Office

B National Directorate of Water (Direcção Nacional de Águas)

Mozambique [email protected] +258-21309621

3 Eng Gilbert Mawere Director, Water Resources Mgt.

B Ministry of Water Resources Development &. Management (MWRD)

Zimbabwe - +263-4-700596

4 Mr Sam Sunguro Groundwater Manager C Zimbabwe Zimbabwe [email protected]. +263-4-250786


2

National Water Authority (ZINWA)

zw

5 Dr Eddy van Wyk Groundwater Manager C DWAF South Africa [email protected] +27828011740 6 Mr Willem du Toit Groundwater Manager C Limpopo

Provincial Office South Africa - +27 152901262

7 Mr Oteng Lekgowe Principal Hydrogeologist B Botswana LIMCOM Representative

Botswana [email protected] +267 5330327

8 Mr Oteng Lekgowe Principal Hydrogeologist C GSB Botswana [email protected] +267 5330327 a A. LIMCOM HQ B. LIMCOM Representative Riparian States C. GW Focal Person Riparian States OKACOM No.

Title Name Position Interview schedule



1 MS Monica Morrison Communications Secretary

1 Some

questions answered by e-mail

OKACOM HQ [email protected] +2676800023

2 Ms Laura Namene Water Resources and Environment Specialist

2 OKACOM country representative, Namibia, DWAF

Namibia [email protected] -

3 Ms Winnie Kambinda

Geohydrologist and OKACOM Technical Task Member

3 OKACOM country representative, Namibia-DWAF

Namibia [email protected]

+264612087167

4 Mr Greg Christelis Hydrogeologist, DWAF Similar interview given to OKACOM

4 Namibia-DWAF Namibia [email protected]

+264612087089

5 Ms Aina Iileka Chief Hydrogeologist, DWAF

5 Namibia-DWAF Namibia [email protected] +264612087102

NBI No. Title Name Position Interview

schedule Representation/ organisation



3

1 Dr Wael Khairy Executive Director A Nile Basin Initiative Entebbe, Uganda

[email protected]

2 Eng Emmanuel Olet Programme Officer, Water Resources Development

A Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action program (NELSAP)

Kigali, Rwanda

[email protected]

3 Mr Fred Mwango NBI TAC –Technical Advisory Committee member/representative of Kenya to NBI. Also former Head of Groundwater Department in Kenya

B&C Ministry of Water and Irrigation

Nairobi, Kenya

[email protected]

4 Mr Odilo Mukiza NBI TAC –Technical Advisory Committee member/representative of Rwanda to NBI. Also Head of Groundwater Section in Rwanda

B &C Ministry of Natural Resources/ Rwanda Natural Resources Authority

Kigali, Rwanda

[email protected]

5 Ms Rinelde Ndayishimiye

NBI TAC –Technical Advisory Committee member/representative of Rwanda to NBI. Also Director General, Geographic Institute of Burundi (IGEBU)

B Geographic Institute of Burundi (IGEBU)

Bujumbura, Burundi

[email protected]

6 Mr Lister Kongola NBI TAC –Technical Advisory Committee member/representative of Tanzania to NBI. Also Head of Groundwater Section in Tanzania

B&C Ministry of Water Resources

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

[email protected]


4

7 Ms Rose Mukankole NBI TAC - Technical Advisory Committee member/representative of DR Congo to NBI

B&C Ministry of Environment and Nature Conservation

Kinshasa, DR Congo

[email protected]

8 Mr Aloys Ndugaritse Coordinator of project on Adding Groundwater Dimesnion in Nile Basin water resources

C Ministry of Energy and Water

Bujumbura, Burundi

[email protected]

9 Dr Callist Tindimugaya

NBI TAC - Technical Advisory Committee member/representative of Uganda to NBI

B&C Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda

Entebbe, Uganda

[email protected]

10 Mr Johnson Pule Senior Hydrogeologist C Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda

Entebbe, Uganda

[email protected]

11 Ms Deborah Mwesigwa

Principal Hydrogeologist C Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda

Entebbe, Uganda

[email protected]

a Interviewed ENTRO regional and national affiliated staff and members of working groups No. Title Name Position Interview

schedule Representation/ organisation


1 Dr Ahmed Khalid Eldaw

Executive Director A ENTRO Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

[email protected] +251 11 6461130

2 Mr Michael Abebe JMP regional Project Coordinator

A ENTRO Addis Ababa, Ethiopia


3 Mr Yosif Ahmed Ibrahim

Senior Water Resources Planner

A ENTRO Addis Ababa, Ethiopia



5

4 Dr Seifeldin Hamad Abdalla (Became the Minister a week after the interview)

Member, NBI TAC -Technical Advisory Committee, and NELTAC

B Ministry of Irrigation &Water Resources, Sudan, Hydraulic Research Station

Khartoum, Sudan

[email protected] +249 912152563

5 Mr Ibrahim Salih Adam

Member, NBI TAC -Technical Advisory Committee, and ENSAPT; Chair, WRTO

B Ministry of Irrigation &Water Resources, Sudan. Water Resources Technical Organ (WRTO)

Khartoum, Sudan


6 Mr Fekahmed Negash

Director, Basin Management Directorate

B Ministry of Water & Energy, Ethiopia

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia


7 Mr Tesfaye Tadesse c/o TAC member

Director, Groundwater A & C Ministry of Water & Energy, Ethiopia

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia


8 Mr Mostafa Abdel Rahim

Director Groundwater C Ministry of Irrigation &Water Resources, Sudan

Khartoum, Sudan


9 Ms Nadia Ibrahim Shakak

Member Working Group, NTEAP- Water Quality Project

B Ministry of Irrigation &Water Resources, Sudan

Khartoum, Sudan


10 Ms Widad Mutwakil Counterpart, WRPMP- DSS Project

B Ministry of Irrigation & Water Resources, Sudan

Khartoum, Sudan

[email protected]

+249 122 094605

11 Mr Joel Nobert NBI-DSS working group member, Lecturer at the University of Dar es Salam

B University of Dar es Salam

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

[email protected] 255 752 546259

a


6

NSAS No. Title Name Position Interview

schedule Organisation Address Email Telephone

1 Mr Osman Mustafa Ahmed

National Coordinator, andBoard member

A JASD-NSAS Khartoum, Sudan


2 Mr Mostafa Abdel Rahim

Board Member; Director Groundwater

A Ministry of Irrigation & Water Resources, Sudan

Khartoum, Sudan

[email protected]

+249 912 147907

3 Ms Miyada Monjid Database Officer, Nubian Sandstone Basin country office

B Ministry of Irrigation &Water Resources, Sudan

Khartoum, Sudan

[email protected] -

OMVS No. Title Name Position Interview

schedulea Representation/ organisation


1 Mr Tamsir Ndiaye Head of Dept. of Environment and Sustainable Development

A OMVS HQ Senegal [email protected]

+221774500520

2 Mr Cheikh Taliby Sylla

Director of Administration and General Resources

A OMVS HQ Senegal [email protected] +221774924014

3 Mr Malang Diatta Water resources management Expert,

A OMVS HQ Senegal [email protected] +221775362827

4 Mr Fadel Ould Saad Bouh

Water resources Expert B OMVS National Unit in Mauritania

Mauritania [email protected] +22022622156

5 Mr Lamine Diop Water resources management Expert

C OMVS National Unit in Senegal

Senegal [email protected] +221772204744

6 Mr Abraham Sogoba

Rural development expert

B National focal point in Mali

Mali [email protected] +22376603718

7 Mr Assane Gaye Senior Hydrogeologist B Groundwater focal point in

[email protected] +22246716862


7

Mauritania 8 Mr Alpha Tougué

Diallo Senior Hydrogeologist B Head of Studies

and Planning Division, SNAPE - Guinea

[email protected]

+22464383781

a A. OMVS HQ B. By telephone C. OMVS National Unit in Senegal

NBA

No. Title Name Position Interview schedule

Representation / Organisation

Country EMail Telephone

1 Mr Abdou Guéro Technical Director 1 NBA HQ Niger [email protected]

+227-20315239; +227-96994610

2 Mr Bréhima Coulibaly Coordinator of GIRE 2, NIGER-HYCOS 1 NBA HQ Mali [email protected] +227-90507756

3 Mr Robert Dessouassi Leader of the Niger Basin Observatory (ABN) 2

NBO within the NBA HQ Benin

[email protected]; [email protected] +227-93934557

4 Mr Garba Radji Assistant Director of Water Resources 3

Water Ministry of Niger, NBA, NFS Niger Niger [email protected]

+227-20722363; +227-20203031

5 Mr Sanoussi Rabé Chief Hydrogeologist 4 Water Ministry of Niger Niger [email protected]

+227-20203848; +227-96592204

6 Mr Karaba Traoré Hydrogeologist 5 & 6 NBA, NFS Mali Mali [email protected]

+223-66782926; +223-78108818

7 Mr Godwin O. Usifoh Director of Hydrogeology Department 7 & 8

Nigeria Hydrological Services Agency (NIHSA) Nigeria [email protected]

+234-8037041510

8 Mr Dr. Benjamin Chibuzo Aneke

HOD (Hydrology and Hydrogeology/Meteorology 9 & 10

Anambra-Imo River Basin Development Authority Nigeria [email protected]

+234-8036664302


8

VBA No. Title Name Position Interview

schedule Representation / Organisation

Country EMail Telephone

1 Mr Charles Biney Executive Director 1 VBA Ghana [email protected], [email protected] +226-50376067

2 Mr Samuel Y. Atikpo Deputy Executive Director 1 VBA Benin

[email protected] +226-50376067

3 Mr Jacob W. Tumbulto Director of Observatory 1 VBA Ghana

[email protected] +226-50376067

4 Mr Symphorien Meda Administrator for Geoportal 2 VBA Burkina Faso

[email protected] [email protected]

+226-70272747; +226-76180000

LCBC No.

Title Name Position Interview schedulea



1 Mr Mohamed Bila Remote Sensing and GIS Expert, LCBC

A

LCBC HQ Chad [email protected] +23566817311

2 Mr Atiku Ahmed Director of Water and Environment, LCBC

A LCBC HQ Chad [email protected] +23522524145

3 Mr Balarabe Belo

Legal Advisor - LCBC A LCBC HQ Chad [email protected] +23599449901

a LCBC HQ

Annex 7. Summarized SWOT analysis

1

STRENGTHS

IBO /issue ORASECOM LIMCOM OKACOM NILE NBI NSAS OMVS VBA NBA

Governan

ce

1. Good political

support

2. Presence of

strong commission

driven by riparian

countries

1. Has a

transboundary

mandate

2. Can provide a

platform for

transboundary

groundwater

monitoring

3. Can provide a

forum for

transboundary

groundwater

governanc.

1. Formed by

the common

agreement

between

states

2. Platform for

knowledge

sharing,

management

1. Clear governance

structure that

includes a policy

organ and a technical

organ

2. Existence of a

secretariat

3. Existence of a

Decision Support

System

Resource mobilization

function is relatively

strong

4. Evolving strategies

and restructuring can

occur within mandate

and available

capacity

1. Agreement

on cooperation

through the

establishment

of a Joint

Authority for

the study and

development of

Nubian

Sandstone

Basin among

the four

riparian states

1. Governed by

OMVS conventions

& encompasses

shared

groundwater

resources

2. Explicit mandate

to address

groundwater

3. Operational

programmes exist

to implement on-

the-ground actions

to enhance

resources

development for

the benefit of local

population

1. The staff is

aware of the

need to

strengthen

groundwate

r integration

into VBA’s

mandate

1. The NBA

has a

permanent

executive

secretariat

based in

Niamey

2. The

water

charter

that

constitutes

the water

policy of

the

riparian

countries

clearly

defines a

judicial

and

institution

al

framework

3. The

political

agenda in

the

member

countries


2


includes

groundwat

er

4. There is

a

significant

experience

in the

manageme

nt of

surface

water

inside the

NBA

Collaborat

ion

between

Riparian

States

1. Good

cooperation

among countries

and financial

availability

2. Basin states

accept IWRM in

their water laws,

making

transboundary

cooperation easier

1. Has strong

political

support from

riparian states

2. Is well placed

to play a

facilitating role

in

transboundary

groundwater

management

1. Platform to

source donor

funding for all

three states

1. Existence of water

resources strategy

that addresses

demands and

interests of riparian

states

2. Conducive

environment for

knowledge/

information sharing

1. JASD-NSAS

has initiated

technical

cooperation on

groundwater

and raised

awareness of

state ministries

1. Decision making

is by consensus &

States are

committed to

implement actions

once an agreement

is reached

2. Has long

standing

experience of

implementing and

operating joint

infrastructure and

programmes on

the ground

1. VBA’s role

of

coordinating

projects and

programs in

the basin

1. Member

states and

organisatio

ns have

trust in the

NBA. The

NBA has a

relatively

strong

mandate

and a legal

framework

to operate

and also

the

possibility

to mobilise

human


3


resources

2. There is

a will to

realize

regional

groundwat

er-related

pilot

projects in

the HQ in

Niamey as

well as on

the level of

the

National

Focal

Structures

(NFS) in

the

member

states

Data

Managem

ent and

Sharing

1. Collaborative

link with SADC and

donors in the

information

exchange of

common interest

areas

1. Has the legal

and political

mandate to

host relevant

transboundary

groundwater

data from the

riparian states

1. Data

sharing

protocol exists

1. Consensus that

groundwater should

receive more

attention, particularly

on monitoring of

quantity, quality and

use, mapping,

research, etc.

1. Agreements

on data sharing

and aquifer

monitoring are

in place

1. Mechanism of

data sharing is

well implemented

within the river

basin structure

2. Piezometric

monitoring

network already

exists in at least 3

member countries,

which may provide

1. There

already

exists

groundwat

er-related

informatio

n in the

member

countries

2. There is

a regular


4


database with

reliable data.

3. A long surface

water level record

exists

collection

and

updating of

data in

some of the

member

countries,

particularl

y Nigeria

Capacity

Building

1. Is well placed

to host

transboundary

groundwater

capacity

building

activities and

training

programs

1. Can pool its

human

resources to

deal with

common

challenges

1. Existence of

groundwater related

professionals among

the Technical

Advisory Committee

and staff of NBI

Acknowledgement of

the need to extend the

mandate of the

regional organisation

1. Raising the

visibility/

profile of

groundwater

sub-sector in

member

countries,

bringing high

professional

interest in

previously

marginalised

groundwater

issues

1. Has permanent

staff at its HQ &

equipped staff in

each country

1. Potential

capacity to

recruit staff

that is

relevant for

the issue of

groundwate

r

managemen

t


5

WEAKNESSES


Governan

ce

1. Prioritization

of surface water

over

groundwater in

1. Is an advisory

body and does

not have a

mandate to

manage the

1.The Nile Basin

Initiative is not an

IBO and will cease

in December 2012

1. Lack of shared

vision for the

management of

the Nubian

1. Lacks a

specialised group

in the structural

governance body

to highlight

1.

Establishment

of VBA

Secretariat

not yet fully

1. The

resources,

both human

and

material, are

IBO Strengths - Summary Governance:

1. IBOs tend to operate within the framework of a multi-state agreement that provides for the possibility of a transboundary water management

mandate.

2. IBOs generally have a permanent secretariat that can initiate and manage programs and projects such as transboundary groundwater management

and monitoring activities.

3. IBOs can provide a platform for mobilizing basin-wide political support and for bringing groundwater higher on the political agenda.

4. IBOs have a good platform for raising finance to carry out transboundary groundwater actions such as monitoring.

Riparian State Collaboration: 1. IBOs can be a focal point for improved political and technical collaboration between riparian states.

Data Management and Sharing: 1. IBOs can provide a suitable platform for hosting transboundary groundwater data and for the management and use of the data.

Capacity Building: 1. IBOs can optimize groundwater management capacity building as a focal point for basin wide training programs in transboundary groundwater

management.

2. IBO’s can optimize capacity utilization by providing a platform for the pooling of scarce technical expertize from the riparian states.


6


the basin

2. There is no

legal provision

for

transboundary

groundwater

regulation

transboundary

groundwater in

the basin

2. Does not have

the skills,

personnel or

equipment to

carry out these

roles effectively

2. Legal

framework to

protect

groundwater is not

yet in place

3. Traditional

focus on surface

water

4. Lack of clarity in

the NBI shared

vision and

Strategic Action

Program on

whether NBI is

focusing on both

groundwater and

surface water

sandstone basin

2. Lack of legally

binding resource

management

agreement

among NSAS

countries

3. Limited JASD-

NSAS mandate,

and inadequate

institutional

framework

4. Lack of

involvement of

stakeholder at all

levels

5. No supportive

government-

society- science

interfaces or

exchange

processes

(Turton, 2006) to

ensure effective

allocation and

management

groundwater

2. Commitment to

address

groundwater

resources,

although ratified,

is not fully

translated into

operational

management

actions

3. The concept of

transboundary

aquifer is not well

perceived or

acknowledged by

river basin

stakeholders

accomplished

2. Incomplete

establishment

of national

focal points

(NFP)

responsive to

VBA

3. Mismatch

between

technical

objectives and

political

objectives

insufficient

throughout

the NBA.

This is

especially

true for the

hydrogeolog

ically skilled

personnel. In

addition, the

financial

resources

are scarce,

especially on

the level of

the member

countries. In

general, but

particularly

in Nigeria,

complaints

have been

heard about

irregular

policies

Collaborat

ion

between

Riparian

States

1. Insufficient

understanding of

transboundary

aquifer systems

1. Does not have

the knowledge

base or the

professional

skills to identify

1.

Communicat

ion on the

ground

between the

1. Designing of

water resources

projects that only

deal with surface

water

1. Emphasis on

technical

cooperation, with

vague basin

management

1. Disparities in

groundwater

challenges and

context as well as

groundwater


7


2. Lack of activity

between

ORASECOM and

National

groundwater

authorities on

groundwater

monitoring

3.Groundwater

resources not

considered

during water

allocation

process

transboundary

groundwater

issues

2. Is not well

integrated with

the

groundwater

management

institutions in

the riparian

countries

stakeholders

, OKASEC

and

OKACOM is

weak

2. Language

difficulties

exist

between

riparian

states

2. National

groundwater

departments in

member states not

involved in the

regional

organisation

3. No exchange of

groundwater data

between countries

framework

2. Sole focus of

JASD-NSAS on the

technical aspects

of the aquifer

characterisation

3. Lack of

mandate in inter-

state relations or

policy

formulation

4. Lack of local

ownership

5. No adoption of

principle of

international law

governing NSAS

groundwater

6. Absence of

typical basin

organisation

institutional and

legal framework

development and

management give

rise to different

focus between

states

Data

Managem

ent and

Sharing

1. Lack of any

monitoring

activity and

modelling

2. Insufficient

1. Has no

existing

platform to host

basin-wide

groundwater

1. Exchange

of

information

is weak and

no relevant

protocols

1. Limited

information on the

groundwater

resources

2. No formalized

1. Agreement on

data sharing is

limited and does

not define

mechanisms

1. Monitoring

activities are

irregular

2. Piezometric

network was not

1.

Groundwate

r monitoring

activities are

weak in the

Niger Basin.


8


understanding of

transboundary

aquifer systems

3.Disparity in the

level of

assessment and

diagnosis on the

suggested

transboundary

aquifers

data

2. Has no staff

to allocate to

such an activity

3. Groundwater

managers in the

riparian states

may be

unwilling to

release data to

LIMCOM

exist mechanism for the

exchange of

knowledge among

riparian states

3. Lack of

infrastructure for

regional / basin

information

management

system

4. No basin

monitoring system

in place yet

2. Information

collection and

sharing are

project-based

3. The NARIS

databases is not

operational

4. Monitoring

networks are

national

responsibility

5. Sharing of data

is in place, but

not according to

guidelines

6. No willingness

to exchange

knowledge,

experience with

other IBOs

7. Poor

information /

knowledge on

surface drainage,

and watershed

characteristics

designed for

groundwater

management

purposes

Hence there

is only a

weak

knowledge

of

groundwate

r resources

throughout

the basin

Capacity 1.Lack of position 1. Is not 1. Inability 1. Limited 1. Transboundary 1. There is a lack of 1. Slow 1. Until now


9


Building for an expert

transboundary

hydrogeologist

2. Lack of

capacity building

3. Lack of

external sponsors

on

transboundary

aquifer projects

equipped to

carry out

capacity

building

activities

2. Lacks the

professional

staff to identify

capacity

building

requirements

to keep

personnel.

2. No

permanent

technical

staff to

implement

its programs

3. Lack of

equipment

and

manpower

to address

groundwate

r issues

understanding and

capacity to

integrate surface

water and

groundwater

2. Stakeholder

platforms still at

preliminary level

3. Lack of

adequate capacity

both in the

regional

organisation and

at national level

4. No permanent

post in ENTRO for

Hydrogeologist

water

management is

at initial stage

2.The present

human capacity

of the JASD-NSAS

is not sufficient to

address

groundwater

management

appropriately

3. Insufficient

funding for

capacity building

plans

sufficient human

capacity with a

background in

hydrogeology in

executive body

recruitment

and

administrativ

e procedure

the

resources

(human,

material,

financial)

provided for

the

exploitation

of surface

water

resources

are

incomparabl

y higher

than those

provided for

the

managemen

t of

groundwate

r resources


10

IBO Weaknesses - Summary Governance:

1. Many IBOs are advisory bodies only that do not have a legal mandate to manage transboundary groundwater.

2. Most IBOs have a strong traditional focus on surface water management, and hardly consider groundwater.

Riparian State Collaboration: 1. Many IBOs are not well integrated with the groundwater management authorities in the riparian states.

2. There is often insufficient understanding of transboundary groundwater issues in IBOs.

3. Disparities in groundwater challenges and context as well as groundwater development and management give rise to different focus between

states.

Data Management and Sharing: 1. Many IBOs have neither groundwater data, nor trained staff, nor a suitable computer platform for a groundwater database at this time.

2. Agreements on data sharing are often limited and ill defined. Data sharing protocols are often non-existent, and riparian states may be reluctant to

share their data under such circumstances.

3. Most IBO agreements do not include any legal requirement for states to share their groundwater data, even in transboundary aquifer situations.

Capacity Building: 1. Many IBOs do not have the skills, personnel or the equipment to carry out transboundary groundwater management.

2. There is often a lack of interest to develop groundwater technical capacity in IBOs due to their focus on surface water resources.


11

OPPORTUNITIES


Governance 1. Profound

interest of

International

donors and

development

partners in

the region

1. Can take

the lead to

initiate

groundwater

monitoring in

transboundar

y

environments

2. Can identify

the impact of

alluvial

groundwater

abstraction on

river flows

and initiate

basin wide

collaboration

to manage

this issue

3. Has an

opportunity to

identify

transboundar

y

groundwater

quality issues

1. Very good

rapport within

the commission

and between

the riparian

states

1. Groundwater

and surface water

co-managed by

river basin in most

of the riparian

states, providing

experience for

similar strategies

for the NBI

2. Strong donor

support for

integrating

groundwater in

river basin

organisations

3. The NBI

Institutional

Strengthening

Project (ISP) is

expected to result

in a functional

river basin

institution

1. Current

international

legal

development is

an opportunity

to establish a

Basin

Commission for

the Nubian

sandstone

aquifer

1.OMVS has

experienced

long term

international

partnership

with river

basins networks

2. Opportunity

for experience

exchange, and

for multilateral

cooperation to

meet financial

capacity

3. All these

countries are

engaged in

poverty

alleviation and

water supply

programmes to

meet or catch

up with MDGs

and

groundwater

has a central

role

1.Increasing

awareness of the

need to enhance

the integration of

groundwater into

water

management in

general as

exemplified by the

groundwater

forums in the Volta

basin

1. There seems

to be a political

will on

continental

level (see

AMCOW) to put

focus on

groundwater-

related issue,

especially the

member

countries in the

Sahelian part of

the Niger Basin

(e.g. the

Republic of

Niger), forced

by the

everlasting

threat of

drought,

worsened by

climate change

and population

growth

2. Main donors

are becoming

more and more

aware of the

topic


12


Collaboratio

n between

Riparian

States

1. The

dependence of

rural

population on

groundwater

which

strengthens

its strategic

role as supply

2. Interest of

rural

communities

and larg-

scale activities

(irrigation,

industry) as

prime

groundwater

users

1. Has the

opportunity to

initiate

collaboration

between the

riparian

states in the

field of eg.

transboundar

y

groundwater

monitoring

2. Can

introduce

transboundar

y

groundwater

issues as a

permanent

agenda item

for all its

regular board

meetings.

1. Opportunity

to establish

joint teams

from the

riparian states.

1. The worldwide

move to develop

strategies and

procedures for

integration of

groundwater in

river basin

organisations

2. Multipurpose

joint (JMP1)

development of the

Eastern Nile to

cooperation and

good practice.

3. Collaboration

with existing

projects on a

number of the Nile

groundwater sub-

basins

1. The ongoing

NBI project

provides a

great

opportunity to

support

integrating

surface water in

the NSAS

management in

the riparian /

aquifer states

1. ECOWAS has

IWRM

framework for

transboundary

water

governance,

promoting

regional

integration

within the

water sector

2.GWP/WA has

initiated a

regional

dialogue for

concerted

(transboundary

) groundwater

management

3. Collaboration

with existing

projects on a

number of the

Nile

groundwater

sub-basins

1. Various ongoing

international

initiatives in the

area of

groundwater

resources

management

including

establishment of

the Africa GW

Commisssion

Data

Management

and Sharing

1.The link

with SADC is a

key platform

to address

transboundar

y

1. Has an

opportunity to

develop a

protocol on

groundwater

data sharing

1. Ongoing

collaborative

project between

NBI and IAEA on

assessing

groundwater

1. There’s

interest

expressed by

IBO authorities

to improve

understanding

1. The necessity

to integrate

groundwater to

establish a

complete water

balance has


13


groundwater

issues where

ISARM-SADC

has been

active since

2005

for

transboundar

y aquifers

2. Has on

opportunity to

stimulate the

creation of a

basin wide

groundwater

database and

to encourage

the riparian

states to share

groundwater

data

3. Has an

opportunity to

support SADC

groundwater

initiatives

such as the

Groundwater

Management

Institute as a

suitable host /

platform for

basin wide

data storage

and sharing

surface water

interaction

2. Concerns about

depletion of the

GW reserves and

pollution threats

3. Eastern Nile

countries agreed

to commission a

trans-border data

inventory (no

groundwater)

4. Ongoing data

collection on

groundwater use

along the Blue

Nile/ Main Nile

river system

of river-

groundwater

interactions

2. An “optimal”

network was

proposed for

sustainable

monitoring

programme in

Mali,

Mauritania, and

Senegal

already been

perceived by

many inside the

NBA

2. There is hope

that artificial

groundwater

recharge can

build an

alternative to

the

construction of

surface water

dams

Capacity

Building 1. Can identify

the capacity

needs within

1. To use

experts from

riparian states’

1. Existence of the

African

Groundwater

1.Multilateral/

bilateral

projects

1. Active

research

institutions

1. BGR-related

activities are


14


the riparian

states for

transboundar

y

groundwater

management

2. Has an

opportunity to

host /

implement

training

courses and

other capacity

building

activities in

the field of

transboundar

y

groundwater

management

groundwater

departments to

support the

OKACOM

structure

2. Opportunity

to synchronise

programmes

between the

riparian states

and OKACOM

Commission that

can provide

strategic support

and guidance

2. Existing work

with Universities in

member states to

address some GW

issues

addressing

IWRM &

transboundary

water

management

2. AMCOW work

plan to promote

institutionalisat

ion of

groundwater

management by

river basin

organisations

with

outstanding

expertise in

groundwater

that have

carried out

studies related

to Senegal River

basin

2. Countries

members have

qualified

hydrogeologists

in their

national

departments

promising


15

IBO Opportunities - Summary Governance:

1. IBOs can promote the philosophy that groundwater should be managed within the river basin catchment management framework.

2. IBOs are well placed to take the lead in transboundary groundwater management and transboundary groundwater monitoring.

3. There is a very strong international interest to bring groundwater management into the ambit of IBOs.

4. IBOs are well placed to identify important transboundary groundwater impacts on river flow, water quality and aquifer degradation.

Riparian State Collaboration: 1. IBOs generally have very good relationships with the riparian states and can introduce the need for transboundary groundwater management.

2. IBOs can establish multi-state taskforces from the riparian states to deal with transboundary groundwater management and monitoring.

3. IBOs can promote transboundary groundwater management on the political agenda in the riparian states.

4. IBOs can link transboundary groundwater management to existing or proposed groundwater projects in the riparian states.

Data Management and Sharing: 1. IBOs have an opportunity to develop a protocol on groundwater data sharing for transboundary aquifers within their river basins.

2. IBOs have an opportunity to stimulate the creation of a basin wide groundwater database and to encourage the riparian states to share

groundwater data.

3. IBOs have an opportunity to support regional groundwater initiatives.

4. IBOs are directly interested and well placed to establish the importance of the linkage between groundwater abstractions and flow and water

quality variations in international rivers.

Capacity Building: 1. There is an opportunity to use experts from riparian states’ groundwater departments to support the IBOs capacity.

2. IBOs can work with AMCOW to promote institutionalisation of groundwater management by river basin organisations.

3. IBOs have an opportunity to link to regional and donor supported groundwater capacity building initiatives.

4. IBOs can identify the capacity needs within the riparian states for transboundary groundwater management.

5. IBOs have an opportunity to host / implement training courses and other capacity building activities in the field of transboundary groundwater

management.


16

THREATS


Governance 1. Limitation

on funding

hinders the

level of

transboundar

y

groundwater

project

formulation

and

implementatio

n

1. May lack the

financial

resources to

carry out

transboundary

groundwater

actions

2. Riparian

states may lack

the resources to

carry out

monitoring of

transboundary

aquifers

3. LIMCOM has

no legal

mandate to

manage

transboundary

groundwater

1. Lack of

organisational

structures on

the ground to

actually ensure

that the

stakeholders

become the

owners of the

programmes of

OKACOM

1. Absence of

strategies and

procedures for

integration of

groundwater in

river basin

water resources

management

2. Some

traditional

development

partners may

not be willing to

fund

groundwater

resources

management

programs

3.

Endorsements

required at

highest political

levels

1.Mismatched

power position of

riparian countries

in the JASD-NSAS

2. Absence of

stakeholder

involvement

3. Lack of sufficient

commitment of the

riparian states to

include surface

water on the

Authority agenda

1. Lack of

financial

resources

1. Global

financial

changes or

uncertainties

1. The high

abstraction of

groundwater as

well as its

growing

pollution

increases the

pressure on the

resource

2. High number

of member

countries (they

are 9) bears the

danger, that

decision

making

processes

concerning

groundwater

and TBA-

related issues

will be

significantly

delaye or

hanmpered

Collaboratio

n between

Riparian

States

1. Riparian

client states

may reject

LIMCOM’s role

in managing

1. Finances:

currently the

riparian states

are funding the

IBO at 50%,

1. Some

riparian states

may object to

inclusion of

groundwater in

1.Limited recharge

to NSAS, and sole

resources in scarce

water regions

2. Hydro-

1. Lack of

common

interest of

member states

on

1. Slow

response from

riparian

countries to

requests made

1. Lack of

collaboration

and agerement

between a

member state


17


transboundary

aquifers

2. Technical

complexities

may limit

LIMCOM’s

ability to

resolve conflicts

arising around

over-pumped

transboundary

groundwater

systems

3. LIMCOM has

no legal power

to enforce

transboundary

groundwater

management

decisions

and this is not

sufficient to

actually initiate

basin scale

programmes

the Nile basin

water resources

management

2. Groundwater

recharge and

inter-basin

transfer issues

may complicate

negotiations

geological conflict

between the major

users on the

aquifer resources

is foreseen

3.Wasteful usage

of the NSAS fossil

groundwater with

emphasis on

maximum

exploitation in

Egypt & Libya

groundwater

resources

by VBA (e.g. Mali) and a

non-member

state (e.g.

Mauritania)

sharing one

aquifer (the

Taoudeni

aquifer in this

particular case)

Data

Management

and Sharing

1. Disparity in

the level of

groundwater

data/informat

ion capture in

the basin

states

1. Some

riparian states

may be

unwilling to

share

groundwater

data

2. Riparian

states have

different data

archive systems

1. The main

unconfined

aquifers can

easily be

contaminated,

but aquifer

users do not

understand this

1. Limited

information on

the

groundwater

resources in the

basin and the

role of

groundwater in

the water

balance of the

Nile Basin

1. Lack of credible/

accurate

information on the

major uses of

groundwater

within the basin

1. Lack of

knowledge of

groundwater

resources

2. Vandalism of

hydraulic

infrastructures

like

piezometers is

persistent

1. The poor

attitude to

collecting and

handling data

in member

countries

threatens the

process of

recognition and

progress

2. Non-


18


that may be

incompatible

2. No

willingness by

the Nile Basin

countries to

share

information

3. Disparities in

the status and

incompatibility

of national

groundwater

information

systems

3. Sustainability

of current

mechanism of

data collecting

& sharing

threatened by

decreasing

motivation

standardization

of data lead to

the fact, that

groundwater-

related data,

which already

exist, will not be

exchanged, will

not be known or

even evaluated

by other

member states

or agencies

Capacity

Building 1. Riparian

states may not

accept the need

for capacity

development

with regards to

transboundary

groundwater

management

2. Funding for

such capacity

development

may be

unavailable

1. Lack of

human capacity

expertise to

actually

implement all

the OKACOM

programmes

1. Limited

capacity in the

basin for

undertaking

groundwater

management

activities

2. No open data

policy, which is

a key

instrument in

capacity

building

3. Lack of

detailed

knowledge

about

groundwater

1. Great disparity

in capacity,

conditions and

challenges in the

riparian states

1. Lack of

human and

financial

capacity

1. Inadequately

trained/qualifie

d staff

1. The lack of

hydrogeological

ly skilled

personnel leads

to extremely

limited

possibilities for

groundwater-

related

education in the

member

countries

2. The

initiatives for

an integration

of groundwater

management

into the regular

activities of the


19


occurrence and

aquifer systems

in the Nile basin

NBA may fail

because of lack

of financing

IBO Threats – Summary Governance:

1. IBOs often lack the finances to carry out transboundary groundwater management and monitoring programs.

2. Many IBOs are advisory organisations and lack the legal mandate to carry out transboundary groundwater programs.

3. Many IBOs lack strategies and procedures for the integration of groundwater into river basin water resources management structures.

4. There are often mismatched resources and political power between the riparian states that can hinder smooth agreement on transboundary

groundwater management.

Riparian State Collaboration: 1. Riparian states may reject the IBOs role in managing transboundary groundwater.

2. Technical complexities may make it difficult to fully understand transboundary groundwater movements and therefore to get support from the

riparian states, especially in conflict situations.

3. Many IBOs do not have a legal mandate to enforce transboundary groundwater decisions.

4. There may be a lack of common interest, or conflicting interests, from member states on groundwater issues.

Data Management and Sharing: 1. Some riparian states may be unwilling to share groundwater data.

2. Riparian states have different data archive systems that may be incompatible

3. Lack of knowledge of groundwater resources.

4. Lack of credible/ accurate information on the major uses of groundwater within the basin

5. Sustainability of mechanism of data collecting & sharing is not assured.

Capacity Building: 1. Limited capacity in the basin for undertaking groundwater management activities

2. Riparian states may not accept the need for capacity development with regards to transboundary groundwater management.

3. Funding for capacity development may be unavailable.

Annex 8. Basin Profile Reports

1

Abiye, T.A., 2012. Basin Profile for Groundwater Needs Assessment: Orange-Senqu River Basin Commission (ORASECOM). . AGW-Net. Diene, M., 2012. Basin Profile for Groundwater Needs Assessment: Senegal River Basin Commission (OMVS), AGW-Net. Jäger, M., 2012. Basin Profile Groundwater Needs Assessment. Volta River Basin. BGR. Mapani, M., 2012. Basin Profile for Groundwater Needs Assessment: Okavango-Cubango River Basin, Univ. of Namibia and WaterNet. Menge, S. and M. Jäger, 2012. Basin Profile for Groundwater Needs Assessment Niger River Basin (ABN). BGR. Mirghani, M., C. Tindimugaya, 2012. Basin Profile for Groundwater Needs Assessment Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), Nile IWRM-Net and AGW-net. Mirghani, M., 2012. Basin Profile for Groundwater Needs Assessment: Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS). Nile IWRM-Net Owen, R., 2012. Basin Profile for Groundwater Needs Assessment : The Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM), , AGW-Net Vassolo, S.I., 2012. Basin Profile for for Groundwater Needs Assessment: Lake Chad Basin Commission (LCBC), BGR.

i

Contact: Karen G. Villholth International Water Management Institute (IWMI) 141 Cresswell St, Weavind Park 0184 Pretoria South Africa Email: [email protected] Phone: +27 12 845 9100 Web: www.iwmi.org Vanessa Vaessen Bundesanstalt für Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe (BGR) Stilleweg 2 30655 Hannover Germany Email: [email protected] Phone: +49 511 643 2380 Web: www.bgr.bund.de/policyadvice-gw

needs assessment to support groundwater...

Documents